How to Handle Broken Rules and Consequences as a Parent

The sign by the roadside said “$100 fine for littering.” I took my candy wrapper and tucked it under the floor mat. I didn’t have $100 I wanted to give to the city. The litter that lines our highways is testimony that consequences do not motivate everyone to obedience. Nor are consequences the only thing that motivates us to obedience. Having an aesthetic eye, I have always enjoyed driving down a highway uncluttered with cans, bags, and white pails. Therefore, my appreciation for beauty motivates me to hold on to my candy wrapper. But I must admit that an awareness of the $100 fine also adds to my motivation.

The breaking of civil rules usually brings negative consequences. One of the difficulties of our society is that, in recent years, the consequences of wrongdoing have been delayed by long and tedious court procedures, and on many occasions the consequences have been minimal. I believe that this has contributed to the growth of civil misconduct over the last several decades. Effective motivation to civil obedience requires quick and certain consequences.

Effective teaching of obedience requires that consequences for breaking rules should cause discomfort to the rule breaker.

In the family, the principle is the same. Obedience is learned by suffering the consequences of disobedience. Effective teaching of obedience requires that consequences for breaking rules should cause discomfort to the rule breaker. If the rule is that our children do not smoke cigarettes, then, if a child is caught smoking, he must immediately eat a carrot—the whole thing. This will give the body beta carotene to overcome the nicotine, and chances are he will think twice about smoking a second cigarette. If there is a second violation, a $25 donation to the American Heart Association, picking up a hundred cigarette butts from the street and putting them in the trash can, and reading an article on the dangers of nicotine to the lungs will probably be enough to convince him that smoking is for camels and not for children.

If a sixteen-year-old is found speeding, then he loses the privilege of driving for a week. A second offense would be loss of driving privileges for two weeks, and so forth. Not many teenagers would get beyond the two-week loss.

From these illustrations, perhaps you see the emerging pattern that consequences should be as closely associated to the rule as possible. It is especially helpful if the consequences for breaking basic family rules can be determined and discussed with the family at the time the rule is made. This has the advantage of the child’s knowing ahead of time what the consequences will be, and it delivers the parent from the peril of having to make a snap judgment about what discipline should be applied. Deciding the consequences before the child breaks the rule is also more likely to give you a reasonable consequence.

As the children get older, you can let them be a part of deciding the consequences. Sometimes you will find that they are harder on themselves than you would be on them. My son suggested that if he did not bring his basketball home at the end of the day, then he should not be allowed to play basketball for two days. I would probably have chosen one day. But since he thought two days was a reasonable consequence, I agreed. When the children are a part of deciding the consequences before the rule is broken, they are far more likely to accept the consequence as being reasonable. This does not mean that the parent abdicates the final decision on what the consequence will be. If the child suggests a consequence that is not painful, then disobedience may be chosen more frequently because the consequences do not bring enough discomfort. Obedience is learned through suffering the consequences of misbehavior.

Sometimes, the consequence of disobedience on the part of a child will also make life more difficult for the parent.

Sometimes, the consequence of disobedience on the part of a child will also make life more difficult for the parent. For example, when driving privileges are taken away from the sixteen-year-old, the parent must transport him to school and other activities, a chore that the parent so recently was happy to give up. But this is the nature of disobedience; it always affects others. A drunk driver does not simply hurt himself, but he is likely to destroy the property and sometimes the lives of others. One of the fundamental realities of life is that one’s behavior affects others. The child seeing his mother suffering the consequences of his disobedience may be further motivated to obedience, assuming the child feels loved by the parents. Otherwise, such inconvenience or discomfort may be seen as deserved or as a way of getting back at the parent.

If you have never clearly delineated what the consequences will be, you have done whatever occurred to you at the moment and have likely found your spouse disagreeing with your discipline, at least sometimes. It is far easier to find agreement when you are not in the heat of the situation. Once you have agreed on the consequences, make sure that all family members understand what the consequences will be. This will make discipline much more acceptable to each child and will cause less conflict for parents. All of you are agreeing that if the rule is broken, these are the consequences. Whoever is at home administers the discipline, but it will be the same no matter which parent is the disciplinarian.

When a rule is broken and the parent is required to make sure that the child experiences the agreed-upon consequence, it is extremely helpful to give your child a dose of emotional love before and after the discipline. It is most helpful when you use the child’s primary love language. For example, let’s say that your son was playing football in the living room, a clear violation of rules. The agreed-upon discipline is that the football will be placed in the trunk of the car for two days, and thus the child would be unable to play football. If any item was broken by the football, the child must pay for the repair or replacement of the item with money out of his allowance.

Brian has clearly violated the rules, and in the process a vase was broken. The value of the vase is thirty dollars. Let’s say that Brian’s primary love language is words of affirmation. The parent may say something like this: “Brian, I think you know that I love you very much. Normally you follow the rules quite well. I am proud of you and your many accomplishments at school and at home. You make me a very happy parent. But when you break the rules, you know that you must suffer the consequences. One of the rules is that you will not play football in the living room. You know the rule, and you know the consequences. So let’s go put the ball in the trunk and leave it there for the next two days. Also, you know that we agreed that you would pay for repairing or replacing any items that were broken. The vase cannot be repaired. To buy a new one will cost thirty dollars. So this will have to come out of your allowance over the next few weeks. I know that this will put pressure on you and you will not be able to do the things you would like to do with your money, but we all have to learn that when we disobey the rules, we have to suffer.”

“But, Mom, Christmas is coming. I need my money to buy my gifts. I can’t afford to lose thirty dollars,” Brian protests.

“I understand that, son, and I know that it will be more difficult for you to buy gifts without the thirty dollars, but I also know that we agreed on the consequences of breaking the rules. I must be consistent in following what we agreed on. I just want you to know that I love you, and that’s why I take the responsibility to help you learn to follow the rules.” The parent may then reach out and give the child a hug. If both before and after affirming the consequences of the child’s misbehavior, the parent expresses love in the child’s primary love language, this is the most effective way to teach the child obedience. Even in suffering the consequences, he is assured of the parent’s love.

Compare this to the common approach of the parent who hears the vase fall from the mantel, dashes to the living room, sees Brian picking up the football, and yells, “I have told you a thousand times—don’t throw the football in the living room. Now look what you have done. You destroyed my vase. When are you ever going to learn? You act like a two-year-old kid. I don’t know what I’m going to do with you. Get out of here.” And the parent slaps Brian on the bottom as he leaves the room. Which of these two approaches is more likely to teach the child healthy obedience?

Now be honest. Which of these two approaches comes closer to the common approach you take when one of your children violates a rule? Which approach do you think is more productive? I think most parents will agree that the plan of clarifying the rule, agreeing on the consequences of misbehavior before it happens, and lovingly but firmly applying the consequences to the child is far more productive both for the child’s learning and the parent’s mental health.